On Existence, Non Existence, and why they are real.

[LucyJr]

Something that does not exist. The entire 'not exist' is taken as a single verb i.e. you're attempting to describe a state of being, in the same way that any other 'not something' works.

Such as if you turn a light off, the light is not on. "Not on" is taken as one singular state which you consider to be true. Without it there can never be a light that is turned off. This also could be connected to existence where current does not exist in the circuit powering the light.

This is a good thing if you're an electrician, unless you like ending up in the hospital. You'd want the non existence of a current in the device you're working on to be a real non existence. i.e. it is actually shut off.

Similarly when you drive a car down the road, you typically want to drive where there are no obstacles that you will hit. Is an open and clear road really not there? Ask your insurance company.

Edit:
Furthermore, if pink unicorns don't exist, this implies that you'll never hit one with your car. Or will never have one get caught in a jet engine, sink a boat, get blown through your roof by a tornado, etc etc.
An infinite number of implications that end up being actualized if the unicorn does not exist.

I still think it's just a basic contradiction. It conform to the principle of identity. "non existence" is... well... the absence of anything, it is exactly "non existence". It's intrinsic condradictory to say that "non existence is real". It is real in the sense that the PERCEPTION of this TRUTH it's TRUE, and that is to say eg "non existence of unicorns is real/true".
1.Unicorns don't exist.- this proposition is true, is real, hoewer, when you put it in the other way...
2.Non existence of the unicorn is real.-this is just merely a reaffirmation of the same truth, namely that unicorns don't exist. It doesn't mean that unicorns DO exist. It affirms that their non-existence is a reality, in a sense that it is TRUE to say that "unicorns don't exist". So when you equate true-real, you get this:
3.Non existence of unicorns is true/real.
If you take in the NECESSITY of that "non existence", the NECESSITY of the truth "unicorns don't exist" it's all nailed down.

 

[sprinkles]

So when you equate true-real, you get this:
3.Non existence of unicorns is true/real.
If you take in the NECESSITY of that "non existence", the NECESSITY of the truth "unicorns don't exist" it's all nailed down.

Yes. That's it exactly.

If it were not real/true it would mean that unicorns do exist. Thanks for the proof.

It's also real enough in that other truths follow, such as a thing not existing also not taking up space.

You can live inside your home because it is hollow inside, yes? I mean there's air and such but you can displace it with your presence.

Or put it this way. When you say a cup is empty, what are you affirming? That there is 'nothing' in it, insofar that you can fill it up with coffee for example. If coffee doesn't exist in the cup then you can potentially put coffee in it without it overflowing from a liquid already being there for example.

In an empty cup, coffee does not exist. If you only perceive it as empty, what happens if it's actually full? Do you also only perceive the coffee spilling all over the place as you try to pour more in? Same thing as non existent unicorns, since there's only one kind of non-existence. Non-existent unicorns are presumed to not exist anywhere but this has the same implications as an empty cup, but the implications would be applied to the entire world - e.g. a unicorn does not displace matter at any point if no unicorns exist, so you will never have a problem of needing to get unicorns out of the way.